The Mar-a-Lago Raid: Criminal Prosecution or Political Indemnification?

Below is my column in the Hill on the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Questions continue to grow over the necessity for the raid as opposed to the use of a subpoena or other means. According to the Trump counsel, the former president was given an earlier subpoena and complied with it and then voluntarily gave the FBI access to a storage area and agreed to add a specified lock on the room. It is not clear why a second subpoena would not have sufficed if there were other covered material under the Presidential Records Act.

There is also a report of a confidential informant or source used in the operation. The only thing clear is that, while the J6 Committee does not appear to have changed many minds, the raid has. Any possibility that Donald Trump might not run seems to be evaporated with any likely challengers in the wake of the raid. That could change as we learn more details but the raid has galvanized Trump’s supporters. Ironically, Newsweek reported that the FBI was hoping the raid with Trump out of town would be a “lower profile” option — a notion that borders on the delusional. The lower profile option is called a subpoena.

Here is the column:

The unprecedented raid on former President Trump’s home in Florida has set off firestorms of celebration and recrimination across the country. For Trump foes, it is the long-awaited moment of FBI agents swarming over Trump’s property in a concrete step toward criminal prosecution. For his supporters, it confirms long-standing suspicions of an FBI willing to target Trump on any grounds possible, to bar him from regaining office.

The raid will fulfill the narrative of both sides and, in many ways, advance both causes. For many Democrats, it will paint Trump as a felon-in-chief; for many Republicans, it will reinforce belief in a “deep-state” conspiracy against him.

Yet this is another moment in need of sobering reality checks on what it does and does not mean.

The most serious possible aspect of the raid did not occur on Monday night. This apparently was not a warrant executed in relation to the Jan. 6 riot or an outgrowth of an ongoing grand jury investigation in Washington that could involve charges of seditious conspiracy, obstruction of official proceedings or other serious counts.

Instead, the raid initially appears to be an outgrowth of the long tension between Trump and the National Archives over material removed at the end of his presidency that is subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

previously testified in Congress on the seizure of some boxes of material at Mar-a-Lago and the authority of the National Archives to seek intervention by the attorney general to force compliance with the PRA. The PRA is rarely subject to criminal prosecution, and past prosecutions have resulted in remarkably light punishments.

While the PRA requires the preservation of documents — and Trump’s alleged removal of records likely violated the law — it is relatively weak on enforcement elements. As shown in prior administrations, presidents have long chafed over the PRA’s limitations and required disclosures.

The 1978 law requires that memos, letters, emails and other documents related to a president’s duties be preserved for retention by the National Archives and Records Administration at an administration’s end. Prosecutions can include charges under Section 2071 which states that anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys … any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited … in any public office” can be fined or imprisoned up to three years. An allegation of removing classified material can trigger other laws beyond the PRA that bar the removal without authorization and proper protections.

Records violations involving both presidential and non-presidential material are common, however. Those laws were raised with regard to former FBI Director James Comey removing FBI material and then leaking information to the press, yet he was not prosecuted.

In the case of President Clinton’s former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, the violations involved stuffing classified material into his pants and socks to remove them from the Archives and, after dropping them at an outside location, to retrieve them later. Berger was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, given two years’ probation and a three-year suspension — not a permanent revocation — of his security clearance.

Former CIA director and retired four-star Army general David Petraeus was accused of giving access to classified information to his alleged lover. Although prosecutors reportedly wanted to file serious felony charges, Petraeus also was given a generous plea deal without jail time.

Thus, the targeting of Trump on a PRA case would raise questions about the necessity for such a raid, as opposed to using a subpoena or other measures. It does not mean criminal charges are inevitable, despite the euphoria expressed in many quarters.

All this brings us back to Sandy Berger’s socks — with a top official knowingly stuffing classified material in his clothing in order to remove it from a secure location, then dropping it at a spot for later retrieval.

Thus far, Trump’s reported behavior is well short of Berger’s. According to Trump’s son, Eric, Trump’s safe was forced open, only to find it empty. The question is, what documents were found and was there prior knowledge that they were illegally withheld? Archives officials searched Mar-a-Lago in February and recovered 15 boxes of material; it is unclear whether they identified and notified Trump of other missing documents believed to remain on his property.

While there is no need to show “evil intent,” the Justice Department must show that “an act is … done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids.” Whether such evidence exists here is not clear.

The Justice Department could argue that the earlier recovery of 15 boxes put Trump on notice that he had to make a complete surrender of any such documents. However, it still would need to show he had the specific intent to hide or retain such material. If he was given specific notice of material in his possession, it could show specific intent. It also would show a virtual self-destructive mania in light of the host of investigations already circling the former president. Absent an extraordinary disregarding of any notice, this search could find covered or classified material — but not necessarily find a viable criminal case.

If that is the case, there likely will be continuing questions over the use of a sensational raid to look for classified material, particularly this close to the midterm elections. The Biden administration has engaged repeatedly in heavy-handed FBI raids without any clear necessity, including searches or arrests targeting Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone, Peter Navarro and other Trump associates; each played out on television, despite the obvious alternatives of voluntary surrenders. It remains unclear whether some of these raids even uncovered criminal evidence or will result in criminal charges.

There is a documented history of bias against Trump by top FBI officials, including prior falsification or misrepresentations used to facilitate the Russia conspiracy investigation. Thus, Attorney General Merrick Garland surely knew this raid would rekindle suspicions that this could be another example of what fired FBI official Peter Strzok once called an “insurance policy” against Trump becoming president in 2016 — only this time in 2024. For that reason, the Justice Department has an added burden to show this raid was a step toward actual criminal prosecution and not just a political indemnification.

We will soon learn if a criminal case can be brought on the fruits of this search. Absent such charges, the empty safe at Mar-a-Lago could become the most indelible and embarrassing image since Al Capone’s safe.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.


616 thoughts on “The Mar-a-Lago Raid: Criminal Prosecution or Political Indemnification?”

  1. And my post is correct.

    You are saying the same thing.
    while pretending there is a difference

  2. Trump as President has the highest Security Clearance and it does not change when he leaves office. He sets the classification of documents and removes them when he decides, even if not notified to all government groups. If the Biden Admin changes classification of any of the documents Trump has they must notify Trump. Trump has been in contact with the government and the National Archives about what he has. In June the FBI came to his home, went through the documents and took back some classified documents, they were monitored by Trump’s Lawyers and Secret Service Agents, and as they sealed the boxes and locked the room Trump told them if they needed anything else to just contact him. This raid was not for documents it was likely to plant something or try to create a cause to submit a criminal case so they can keep him from running for office. To try to say that Trump has those criminal cases against him I do not think would hold up.

  3. Anonymous the Stupid, Trump has faced more indictments than any other good citizen I have ever read about. You have agreed with the facts behind all of them, yet one by one the facts disintegrated and Trump was not convinced. You have also supported many of the lame brained ideas that supported other false indictments and one by one the facts you supported turned out to be false.

    Do you understand what it means to be wrong almost every time? It means you are not credible and no one except a fool should believe anything you say.

    You called Ashli Babbitt a Stupid Woman. What you should have said is that you are a Stupid Man.

      1. RE:”Seems Jonathan forgot the two biggest recent cases of records issues .” That’s quite a leap in that appears to factor into every advocacy for Trump and remains clear in the public memory..

      2. Even before that, Kenneth Star had an indictment all ready for Hillary during the Clinton impeachment and didn’t follow thru. She had a Sh!t load of FBI files then and it is connected to now and how she obfuscates the law

  4. Former President Donald Trump on Friday pointedly denied still possessing classified documents about nuclear weapons after a Washington Post article suggested that was what FBI agents were searching for in his home.

    He compared the article to leaks during the 2016 election of the now-discredited Steele dossier.

    Trump wrote on his social media app Truth Social, “Nuclear weapons issue is a Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a Hoax, two Impeachments were a Hoax, the Mueller investigation was a Hoax, and much more.”

  5. Former President Donald Trump late Thursday said he supported the immediate release of the warrant the FBI used to search his Florida estate. “Release the documents now!” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social Platform….

    Trump also gave his most extensive reaction yet to the raid on his home, saying his team was cooperating and there was no need for an adversarial search that he decried as “unAmerican, unwarranted and unnecessary.”

    “Not only will I not oppose the release of documents … I am going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents,” __Donald trump

    U.S. Magistrate Bruce Reinhart will decide whether to release the search warrant.

  6. The latest cover-up, in a long-line of pretexts (read: lies), for the political prosecution of DT: nuclear secrets.

    Next up: King Tut’s tomb. Which he was hiding in his safe. Or was it the storage room?

    Dismiss absurdities. DT’s political enemies are pathological liars (and power-lusters).

  7. CANCELLED: 9:00 am EDT The conservative Republicans’ House Freedom Caucus will no longer be holding a news conference to discuss the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate.

    Gee, I wonder why.

  8. I don’t believe Garland knew anything about the raid.

    Its a combination of the Intelligence Community and the corrupt management of DoJ and FBI

    The AG is powerless to the entrenched instituttional corruption.

    IF Garland OK’d the raid, He is too clueless to lead even a Boy Scout Troop. I’m supposed to believe raiding the Home of President Trump would not raise a firestorm?

    That is nest level siloed idiocy.

      1. Garland keeps saying how they don’t talk about ongoing investigations, but we see Garland talking a lot when it suits him. I wonder if Garland knows what is actually happening around the edges. He seemed brighter when he was being considered for the Supreme Court but today he seems weak and out of it.

        1. RE:”He looked like a hostage being forced to read a ransom note.” A carefully crafted and worded one at that.

    1. Garland said in his 5 minute TV spot that he was personally involved and signed off on this. He is dirtier than the dirt around an old out house. He is trying to settle a score , as he will never be a scotus judge !!!.

      1. RE:”I don’t believe Garland knew anything about the raid.” Wise is the individual who remains circumspect when crafting commentary in matters such as these. Recent history has demonstrated that the game is played, not in the interests of the citizenry, but rather in perpetuating the power base and all that accrues to them. Possessing ethical and moral turpitude are the qualities most prized and an electorate which fail to appreciate the presence of these in certain individuals are their lawful prey.

  9. Arrogant elites exercise their “quiet bravery” by leaking to the Washington Post like a drunk down at the corner bar, then they hide behind principles and they have none. They don’t debate and they don’t questions. They’re soulless individuals who will be remembered for the damage they do.

    1. Like Berger and Petraeus, Trump should pay for any actions removing (or destroying) national security documents. Jonathan, you wrote it yourself: “While the PRA requires the preservation of documents — and Trump’s alleged removal of records LIKELY VIOLATED THE LAW — it is relatively weak on enforcement elements…”

  10. Many are guessing about what reason the DOJ used to obtain the warrant approval from Judge Bruce “Rubberstamp” Reinhart. The New York Tymes has revealed that the story begins with the second cousin of Christopher Steele, Bryce Steele, who had learned of a secret document proving that Donald Trump was the ringleader behind the January 8th Resurrection.

    Mr. Steele said he learned about the document after overhearing some neighbors gossiping about it. According to Mr. Steele, he followed up with one of the neighbors and she said that she heard about the secret document from the grandson of her uncle’s aunt. Mr. Steele, the great investigator that he is, ultimately tracked down the source of this vital information, which took him to several cities, and ultimately to Grovers Mill, NJ.

    From Mr. Steele’s conversation with the Confidential Informant in Grovers Mill, Mr. Steele learned that Donald Trump had obtained the secret document and was planning to sell it on eBay. Mr. Steele immediately contacted some of his friends in the Justice Department and because of the urgent nature of the matter, the DOJ thought it best if the FBI seized the secret document before Trump could sell it on eBay. And when Judge Reinhart learned these facts, he immediately signed off on the warrant.

    At any rate, now we at least know the true facts behind the DOJ’s and the FBI’s urgency and their decision to invade Trump’s home. We should thank the New York Tymes for setting the record straight.

    1. RE:We should thank the New York Tymes for setting the record straight”. A more concise and accurate telling of events even the great Congressional screen writer ‘Shifty’Schiff himself could not devise. Bravo!!

    1. “The More I see of Merrick Garland the more I’m convinced that there should be a statue of Leader McConnell
      in Washington for keeping this dishonest and dishonorable fellow off of SCOTUS.” @datechguyblog

  11. Folks, now the unsourced rumor from the black leotards is that Trump has absconded with “nuclear” secrets. They will claim Trump took the secrets to blackmail the government out of prosecuting him for conspiracy to overthrow the government.

    This idiotic fantasy-hoax is right up there with golden showers and rape gangs run by teenaged Supreme Court justices, but that pussy-hat logic won’t stop MSNBC subscribers from believing every word of it.

    Clearly, the left needs new writers. Fiction has to be believable if they want a wider audience.

    1. “It’s like the plot of a Bond movie

      “Here at my Florida mansion, Mr. Bond, is where I keep the nuclear documents that I will use to blackmail the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!”

      (Will Chamberlain tweet)

  12. RE:”Holy ‘Deep Throat’, Batman! Of course, given past practices, Ii’s reasonable to infer that FBI/DOJ leaked this. “The Washington Post cited people familiar with the investigation’ as saying nuclear weapons documents were thought to be in the trove the FBI was hunting in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. They did not specify what kind of documents or whether they referred to the US arsenal or another country’s.” We shall see if it ever comes out of the rabbit hole.

  13. Anon,

    Read my post again. This guy has been “dishing it back” for some time and it has been childish at best. However, in this case the little guy actually came up with something pretty decent and I complemented him on it.

    “fRayed”, I like it! I thought that this would be clear from my post.

  14. RE:”Documents Seized At Mar-a-Lago May Have Included Nuclear Weapons Information Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons..” Is this alleged to be the predicate, in the affidavit, which gave purpose to the warrant? What is the source of the anonymous sources. Mind you, the warrant may be made public, but it is not likely that affidavit will.

        1. You’re talking about the warrant application, not the warrant. My comment was about the warrant.

      1. The warrant must identify the alleged crime.

        FISA warrant applications must be true and accurate. A corrupt DoJ aided by political judges, are immune from ‘must’

      2. “The warrant must identify the alleged crime.”

        You’re conflating *search* warrants and *arrest* warrants.

        1. No, I’m not. And it appears that Trump has now released the warrant, and it identifies that the search was carried out as part of investigating the following crimes: 18 U.S.C. 793 (an Espionage Act offense), 2071 (purloining government records), and 1519 (destroying or mutilating records).

          1. RE:” And it appears that Trump has now released the warrant..” The storage area was double locked and the Feds knew there were documents inside and requested that it be better secured while they were still talking. So they wait three days after the warrant is signed, when Trump is away to pull a minor ‘Tony Montana visit’ to seize the property they couldn’t agree to have turned over at will so they’d have something on him before November? Is that the story, Jerry?

  15. The outright evil behavior of the DOJ through the FBI, with the help of the evil Obama judge, might “become the most indelible and embarrassing image since Al Capone’s safe”? Could you possilby do more to downplay the despicable actions by the political party you proudly support? To some of us out here, abetting evil is evil in itself.

  16. Documents Seized At Mar-a-Lago May Have Included Nuclear Weapons Information

    Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.

    The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation. Nor did they say if such documents were recovered as part of the search. A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment.

    Edited From:

    1. “FLASHBACK (FEBRUARY 2019): “Whistleblowers Raise Grave Concerns with Trump Administration’s Efforts to Transfer Sensitive Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia” … Since leaving office, the Saudis have “invested” $2 billion with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and paid Trump untold sums to host two professional golf tournaments at his properties”

      1. So ?

        The Trump’s have had relations with the Saudis since Before Trump was president.

        Do you know something no one else knows that you put invested in scare quotes ?

        There has absolutely never been any evidence that anyone “invested” with Trump or his family in the way that they “invested” with Hunter Biden.

        Regardless, Long before Trump it has been well known that if Iran gets a Nuke – the Saudi’s will too.
        There is no chance SA is going to allow Iran to become a more significant regional superpower.

          1. Quotation marks around a single word or short phrase scare quotes are used to denote irony or scarcasm,

            AGAIN to this day there is no evidence that any investments with Trump or his family were anything but actual investments with expected monetary returns in the normal way.

            sarcastic “investing” is hiring Hunter biden as a board member on an energy company.

                1. And aparently he posts quotes from others randomly for no reason.
                  And he is unable to read nested quotes.

              1. Since leaving office, the Saudis have “invested” $2 billion with Trump’s

                Invested was quoted inside the quote.

                And you offered the larger quote, giving it your impramatur.
                But even if you did not intend that – there is nothing wrong with my response,
                and nothing wrong with my understanding of quotes.

                Though you appear to have not read your own quote very well or you never would have started this idiotic and incorrect grammar attack.

                Mostly I do not give a schiff about inconsequential grammar problems in my own posts – or anyone elses.

                But if you set yourself up as the grammar police – you make a fool of yourself when you are wrong.

                I own up to my own mistakes. Though as I said I do not give a schiff about Grammar or spelling errors – unless you are paying me.

                Own up to yours.

                1. JBS, Aniny goes into full pedantic mode when his logic a reason crash and burn, and facts keep proving him wrong. Punctuaton, grammar and dictionary minutia are his safe place

                2. You often don’t own up to yours. You still don’t understand or want to understand the difference between polynomial and exponential growth, for example.

                  You said “Do you know something no one else knows that you put invested in scare quotes ?”

                  But I am not the one who put the word invested in quotation marks in the quote “Since leaving office, the Saudis have “invested” $2 billion with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and paid Trump untold sums to host two professional golf tournaments at his properties.” That was Judd Legum who did it, as was clearly identified in my OP. I also don’t interpret his use of quotation marks as “scare quotes.” You do. Opinions often differ.

                  1. “You often don’t own up to yours. You still don’t understand or want to understand the difference between polynomial and exponential growth, for example.”

                    You ca go back and reread the entire hundreds of posts thread if you wish. As that thread got deeper and deeper into totally unrelated areas of detailed mathematical minutia I made a few minor errors, owned them and corrected them.

                    But the claim you made above is the perfect example of what is wrong with leftists idiots. It neither reflects what I said, nor has anything to do with the discussion. Though it had everything to do with David Benson’s bogus tangent.

                    First though the term “Growth” crept into the discussion, I did not introduce it and it is misleading. I was dealing with a relationship between two variables. The term Growth leaves the impression that we are talking about an independent change in one variable.

                    Next Exponential is a perfectly valid generic term for an increasing rate of increase – in fact it is the most common term for that.
                    It is so common that DB and others efforts to correct it lead them to use other terms that by their own false application of much more narrow mathematics was equally wrong.

                    I am not going to own and error that I did not make. Further, very early in the discussion I refered all of you to graphing calculators and web sites that would graph equations for you. I do not give a schiff about your nonsense about how to properly describe the relationship of two variables in an equation, when you can just go graph them and SEE the relationship.

                    This is common leftist BS – fighting over language – nearly always incorrectly, to avoid confronting FACTS. Graph SB, Graph Arrenhius, Or Graph the equations that DB claims is correct. They will not produce results that match the models. They will not produce results that match the real world.

                    “But I am not the one who put the word invested in quotation marks in the quote”
                    You are the one who posted it.

                    Do you regularly post quotes to edify the rest of us when you do not know what they mean ?

                    If you post a quote – you are owning what it says.

                    “That was Judd Legum”
                    And it was you who cut and pasted the quote.

                    “I also don’t interpret his use of quotation marks as “scare quotes.” You do. ”
                    No the guides on the use of Quotes do.
                    Quoting a word, or short phrase indicates irony, sarcasm or emphasis.

                    Obviously you can have a different opinion, but it would be at odds with accepted use.

                    Regardless, do not beat me up over grammar while pretending that you can have whatever opinion you want about it.

                    1. RE: “Regardless,do not beat me up over grammar ..” Might as well try to change the earth’s orbit. There’s always a ‘have the last word’ come back. I’ve learned to mostly scan and delete with this lot. Have a great day, John.

                    2. John Say is entirely correct. I followed that discussion closely and ATS came in as an add on. But what ATS tried to do was stretch what was said and forgot about context. As usual ATS is lying. He is basing his lie on dictionary definitions and then changing the what was actually said.

                      Now there is a big deal over the word invested that was placed in quotes. ATS said it wasn’t his, but ATS quoted the statement so he must have agreed with what it said and how it was written.

                      This is the problem with ATS. He links and quotes but frequently doesn’t know what the links or quotes said. This is another example of ATS having to face the words he wrote. HE had his chance to explain, but instead he chose to play a game. This made ATS look like a fool. His games always make him look like a fool.

                      John has been honest. ATS is a disgrace.

                    3. Mistyped address, so wrong icon. It was me. We have some weak individuals that are pilfering names. However, I don’t mind those that pilfer the names I use for ATS and make it sound like me when posting anonymously.

              2. “The entire text is” mis-formatted. Any confusion is on your shoulders.

                And for the record: “invested” is clearly intended as a scare quote.

        1. John, so it seems the “raid” was justified if nuclear weapons information was involved. That is a bit deal. And Trump very likely can be charged for the crime of having that information at his home. He literally stole it.

          We’ll see if Trump objects to releasing the warrant.

          1. “John, so it seems the “raid” was justified if nuclear weapons information was involved.”

            If the GSA inadvertently transfered classified nuclear documents to Mar-A-Lago they were obligated to retrieve them.

            A warrant requires a crime. There is still no crime alleged here.

            “That is a bit deal. And Trump very likely can be charged for the crime of having that information at his home.”

            “He literally stole it.” – so you actually think he snuck back the whitehouse on Jan. 21 for these documents ?

            Or do you think they were down his pants when he left on VM-1 ? Oops that would declassify them.

            You do not seem to understand Trump can not steal them as president, and as ex-president he can not get at them.
            That means the only way they get to Mar-A-Lago is an error by the GSA.

            This of course presumes that the rumour is true, which I doubt.

            All this does is provide another way that the DOJ could be in deep shit.

            What happens if this “Raid” did not find nuclear docs ?

            The choices you have are:
            They were never there
            The FBI was too incompetent to find them.

            While in the unlikely event that somethin was found – now you have to establish that Trump brought it to Mar-A-Lago after Trump was no longer president.

            And you have the problem
            Why couldn’t NARA find it before ?
            Why couldn’t the FBI find it in May ?

            You really think incredibly shallowly.

            If some left wing nut makes a claim to you – you do not think – is that even possible, and if so is it even credible ?

            No, you jump immediatly to STUPID – Trump is actually spying for Saudi Arabia.

            Only idiot left wing nuts buy such complete stupidity.

      2. Anonymous, you sweet fool, the Saudis would go to Pakistan for the bomb and pay for it with oil.

        Iran would go to North Korea for the bomb and pay for it with pallets of cash from Obama.

        1. The whole claim is ludicrous.

          While Trump certainly could demand that DoD deliver to him classified nuclear documents – say the plans for some weapon,

          There would be red flags all over the place. Someone would follow those plans everywhere Trump went with them.
          There would be no way to get them out of the WH.

          Which is one of the other things here.

          Why is it that those on the left seem to think it is trivial for Trump to smuggle classified documents out of the whitehouse ?

          I guess that is partly because they have deluded themselves into beleiving that Hillary accidentally sent classified documents on here personal mail server – as if removing classified documents from a SCIF is trivial.

      3. Classified info pertaining to nuclear weapons has its own classification designation under the Atomic Energy Act, known as Restricted Data. Violations involving Restricted Data are investigated by the DOJ Counterintelligence & Export Control Section. Notice that Jay Bratt, one of the people who signed the DOJ motion to unseal the warrant, works with the Counterintelligence & Export Control Section.

        I wonder whether Trump is going to oppose motion to unseal.

        1. The entirety of this nonsense rests on the ludicrous presumption that somehow AFTER leaving Office Trump snuk back into the Whitehouse and removed classified documents.

          It does not matter what the documents are about. That does not change the fact that the documents have very few ways to get to Mar-A-Lago.,

          And the near certain way they did was via the GSA – Not Trump.

            1. “Who is claiming Trump snuck back in to get documents?”
              Anyone who claims the documents are stolen.

              “If you believe that’s the basis for the search warrant that speaks to your level of denial.”
              No I do not. The people claiming these documents were stolen do. Those are on the left,
              I do not believe the search warrant has a credible basis,
              But we are not likely to find that out soon.
              The warrant will be made public.
              The receipt will likely be made public.
              Those will not tell us WHY the search warrant was issued.
              The Affidavit will take longer to be made public or will not be made public at all.

      4. Thanks for posting. Always thought trump was sort of a sleeper agent for a number of foreign entities. Could be he was more cognizant than I’d previously thought.

    2. Republicans should go nuclear over this!

      Oh, wait.

      They’d be going nuclear if it were Obama. But they’ll give Trump a pass.

    3. Norman Ornstein: “I’m just hoping that none of the documents include sensitive information about our Jewish space lasers.”

    4. washcompost, like the nytimesslime, mslsd, alphabet networks, and virtually the entirety of the msm proganda media, do nothing but promote, schill, and work 24/7 pushing the marxist-globalist agenda. Its equal to referencing pravda as a legitimate source of truth for te communist tyrant crooks who ran ussr during the cold-war – or mao’s china, etc. It only pumps lies that dupes and fascist authorian lovers believe like false-religion. Thanks for self-identifying.

    5. I remember Bill Clinton lost the nuclear codes for months. The FBI went looking for them, and all they found was a blue dress.

Leave a Reply